Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wesley and Diana Athey married on January 25, 2014, and separated on April 1, 2017. Wesley initiated divorce proceedings in September 2016. Following a protracted litigation spanning nearly seven years marked by multiple delays and contested filings, the trial court conducted a bench trial on November 6–7, 2023. Just before trial, Wesley sought a continuance citing spinal surgery but ultimately appeared remotely via Zoom, though his counsel announced not ready for trial.
At trial, Diana testified that she owned valuable family heirlooms kept in a safety deposit box, including gold bracelets with antique Mexican coins, gemstone jewelry, gold pendants, an Omega necklace and bracelet, multiple rings, and a charm bracelet with antique charms and coins inherited from her mother and grandmother. She testified that when she accessed the box on April 25, 2017, after separation, all the jewelry was missing. Trial records established that Wesley had accessed the box without Diana on April 3, 2017. Wesley denied taking the jewelry, claiming he had no knowledge of what Diana alleged was missing.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s $25,000 judgment. The court rejected Wesley’s due process challenge because he failed to raise it before the trial court—merely filing a continuance motion and announcing not ready did not constitute proper preservation of a constitutional claim. The court declined to address this issue for the first time on appeal.
On the factual sufficiency issue, the court acknowledged that Diana’s evidence lacked specific details about the metals’ weight, gemstone quality and carat, and the jewelry’s actual or estimated value. However, the court held this valuation error alone did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court noted that Wesley bore the burden of proving the error resulted in a manifestly unjust and unfair division of the marital estate—an argument Wesley failed to make in his brief. Under the abuse of discretion standard governing marital property division, the trial court as fact-finder has broad latitude and its credibility determinations are entitled to deference.
The court found harmless the trial court’s failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law following Wesley’s timely request, because Wesley was not prevented from properly presenting his appeal to the appellate court.
This decision reinforces the high deference afforded trial courts in family law property division matters. Even where evidence of an asset’s value is imprecise, trial courts retain broad discretion to award a money judgment as just and right division of the marital estate. The holding places significant burden on appellants challenging such awards to affirmatively argue manifest injustice, rather than merely attacking the trial court’s valuation methodology.
The decision also clarifies procedural requirements for preserving constitutional claims on appeal in divorce litigation. The ruling demonstrates that technical compliance with trial procedures—such as raising objections at trial—remains essential to appellate review, and that courts will not entertain arguments for the first time on appeal that were not presented to the trial court.